Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for February, 2017

One County Saw a 27% Drop in Assaults After It Helped Enforce Immigration Law. Here’s the Rest of the Story.

waving flag disclaimerAuthored by Josh Siegel / / February 27, 2017

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has 37 agreements in 17 states with local law enforcement agencies to help enforce immigration law. (Photo: Reuters/Newscom)

In July 2007, the elected board of a growing county in Northern Virginia adopted a controversial resolution requiring the police department to partner with the federal government to help deport illegal immigrants.

Corey Stewart, the Republican elected the year before as chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, ran on a platform of stricter immigration enforcement during a time of economic anxiety.

“The main purpose of the resolution was to remove criminal illegal aliens so they couldn’t commit crimes, and to reduce illegal immigration to Prince William County,” Stewart recalled in an interview with The Daily Signal.

Before 2007, Prince William, a county of about 450,000 today, experienced dramatic growth in the number of foreign-born residents. Most of these recent arrivals were Latino, a segment of the total population that almost doubled from 11.5 percent in 2000 to 21.9 percent in 2006.

The debate over the immigration enforcement measure, amplified by demonstrations and phone and email campaigns to sway the eight county supervisors, ended with a 15-hour board meeting. More than 100 people testified before board members, delaying the vote, The Washington Post reported. Prince William’s supervisors, including six Republicans and two Democrats at the time, approved the measure unanimously.

Test Case: ‘Avoided the Controversy’

Prince William’s policy, as originally implemented in March 2008, required police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone officers encountered who they suspected to be in the country illegally, including people stopped for traffic tickets, for instance. The Obama administration shunned policies like this one, which were authorized through the use of a program known as 287(g) that permits local and federal immigration partnerships.

The George W. Bush administration had expanded the use of 287(g) agreements—named for the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton, that created them.picture1

In President Barack Obama’s second term, however, his administration curtailed the 287(g) program, citing investigations and court rulings that found local officers in some jurisdictions had engaged in racial profiling when enforcing immigration law.illegalalienvoters-300x300

The most high-profile case was in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous county, where a federal judge ruled in May 2013 that Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s policy discriminated against Latinos.

But today, as part of its own effort to strengthen immigration enforcement, the Trump administration is seeking to encourage and expand the use of 287(g) agreements.ATTA BOY

In new memos detailing implementation of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, John Kelly, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, called the program a “highly successful force multiplier” that would help overburdened federal deportation agents enforce immigration law. As local politicians and law enforcement agencies decide whether or how to act on Trump’s call for help, observers say Prince William’s experience can be instructive on how to make a successful partnership that balances community and security concerns.

Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, promoted an ordinance requiring the police department to help enforce federal immigration law. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom)

Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, promoted an ordinance requiring the police department to help enforce federal immigration law. (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Newscom)

After pushback from the police chief at the time, Charlie Deane, who worried about diverting resources from normal operations to immigration enforcement and harming public trust, the board of supervisors suspended the policy at the end of April 2008. The board implemented a revised policy in July 2008. Under the change, police officers could inquire about immigration status only after arresting someone and taking him or her to the county jail—not during interactions on the street before making an arrest.

“Prince William County took a moderate, down-the-middle approach and avoided the controversy,” said Randy Capps, the director of research for U.S. programs at the Migration Policy Institute, who helped write a study of 287(g) programs that included Prince William County.

“That’s an interesting contrast with other police departments and sheriff’s offices, and it shows that for this to work, it has to be somewhat reflective of local concerns,” Capps told The Daily Signal. “We have a tradition in the U.S. of local control over policing, and that will mean variations in policing when it comes to immigrants.”

Stewart, who served as Trump’s campaign chairman in Virginia, had fought scaling back the county’s policy of enforcing immigration law. But today he credits the change with helping reduce serious crimes in Prince William County, such as aggravated assault—which declined 27 percent after announcement of the original policy in July 2007—while also respecting residents.

According to a University of Virginia report from 2010, no one made a substantiated claim of racial profiling related to the immigration enforcement program. Stewart says that is still the case.

Police officials issued bilingual brochures explaining the modified program to residents, and conducted hundreds of briefings with religious groups, social service agencies, and school faculty, among others.

“I opposed the change at the time, but at the end of the day, it was good,” Stewart told The Daily Signal, adding:

Federal immigration authorities need to be able to leverage local law enforcement to do the job of removing criminal illegal aliens. To do these things right, you have to make sure the community understands you are not racial profiling, but you are targeting illegal aliens who commit crimes. I learned there is a PR element which was very, very hard. Because one bad case of racial profiling can undo the whole thing.

Change in Priorities

At the peak of the 287(g) program’s use, in 2008, more than 60 local law enforcement agencies across the nation had agreements with the federal government, including three dozen that allowed for street-level enforcement. In street-level agreements, known as “task force” models, police officers and sheriff’s deputies could inquire about a person’s immigration status when they encountered him or her during routine patrols—as under Prince William’s original policy. These agreements allowed state and local law enforcement to work in task forces with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials on specific immigration-related operations.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, said 287(g) agreements at one point were responsible for nearly 20 percent of all criminal deportations by ICE. ICE credits the program for identifying more than 402,000 “potentially removable aliens” from January 2006 through Sept. 30, 2015. From 2006 to 2013, the program led to 175,000 deportations, The New York Times reported. Today, ICE has 37 agreements in 17 states, but law enforcement agencies administer all of them in local jails, not in the streets.


That’s because Obama’s administration decided in 2012 to end street-level agreements, meaning that trained local police may question people about their immigration status only after booking and jailing them.

“The jail models are the ones that are most useful to ICE just because of the sheer numbers [of deportations] they generate,” Vaughan said, adding:

But the task force models canceled by Obama were extremely useful to local agencies, in some cases, at addressing specific crime problems. The Obama administration’s suppression of this program has contributed to the steep drop in interior enforcement.

In the Trump administration’s implementation memos, the Department of Homeland Security does not specify whether street-level agreements will be made available again to local agencies, although it leaves open the possibility.

“It is the policy of the executive branch to empower state and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the memos say.

In addition to restricting the 287(g) program, the Obama administration narrowed the categories of illegal immigrants targeted for deportation to convicted felons, national security threats, and recent arrivals. By the end of Obama’s eight years as president, the administration didn’t consider around 90 percent of the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants a priority for deportation, the Migration Policy Institute determined.

Interior removals—deportations of illegal immigrants who are not residing at or near the border—decreased by 71 percent during Obama’s presidency, from 237,941 in fiscal 2009 to 69,478 in fiscal 2015, according to ICE data.illegalalienvoters-300x300

The Obama administration had instructed local law enforcement officials to follow the narrow priorities set by the federal government. However, the Migration Policy Institute found that some jurisdictions did not always follow that direction, and sought to have ICE deport “nearly 100 percent of potentially removable immigrants they encounter.”

Trump’s orders, by contrast, instruct federal immigration officers to deport not only those convicted of crimes, but also those who aren’t charged but are believed to have committed “acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense.”

“The No. 1 limitation of the ability to remove people from inside the United States is finding them,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former policy adviser at the Department of Homeland Security.

“Trump is expanding the net of people who are removable, but a few thousand ICE officers don’t have such a great chance of encountering them, especially in small jurisdictions,” Brown told The Daily Signal. “Criminal aliens, or those suspected of crimes, are much more likely to encounter state and local police. It’s up to the localities to decide how to follow Trump’s guidance. There’s always friction because there’s different priorities at different levels of government.”

Renewed Interest in Local Partnerships

Since it became clear Trump embraces the 287(g) program, some local agencies already are eager to engage with ICE, even if the partnership exists only in jails. Last month, A.J. Louderback, the Republican sheriff of Jackson County in Texas, signed such an agreement with ICE. Louderback, who is also legislative director of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas, said more than 10 other counties in the state have expressed interest in brokering new partnerships with the federal government.

“We need to make sure our criminal aliens are handled consistently throughout Texas and throughout the U.S.,” Louderback told The Daily Signal.

“And the best way we can do it, the most efficient way we can do it, is to cooperate with ICE to make sure each criminal foreign-born alien is properly vetted before we let them out of jail.”amen

In the jail model, trained local officers interview inmates about their immigration status and identify potentially removable illegal immigrants to ICE. When booked, all new inmates are asked to state their place of birth and nationality. If an inmate indicates he is a noncitizen and foreign-born, the officer screens him by accessing a federal database that includes information about immigration status and history, then consults with an ICE supervisor. If the local officer discovers that the person is an unauthorized immigrant, the officer may issue a detainer. This allows the jail to hold the inmate 48 hours past the normal release time before transferring the inmate to ICE custody. ICE then would decide whether to pursue removal proceedings against the illegal immigrant.

Aside from training local officers chosen to carry out immigration enforcement duties, and providing and installing associated equipment, ICE does not pay for any costs associated with implementing the program. The local agency bears the costs.

In Prince William County, the sheriff’s office currently operates the 287(g) program through the jail. The police department’s agreement with ICE ended in 2012, after the Obama administration stopped allowing enforcement by local officers in the streets.

Prince William’s Stewart says ICE has trained eight officers in the county jail who do nothing but check immigration status. He does not expect or want the county to expand into street-level enforcement, Stewart said, but is hopeful for one change under the Trump administration. In previous administrations, he told The Daily Signal, ICE did not notify the county on whether the federal agency deported or released illegal immigrants after local officials transferred them to federal custody. ICE held that such information was private.

Local police rearrested 14 percent of the more than 7,400 illegal immigrants handed over to ICE since 2008, Stewart said.

“What changes now is a belief that Trump will keep his word and we will finally see the federal government deporting the illegal aliens we have handed over to them,” Stewart said.

Resistance Remains

Despite some renewed interest in 287(g), the program faces resistance from some states as well as so-called sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation in enforcing federal immigration law.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said last week that the city would cooperate in cases involving “proven public safety threats,” but vowed that “what we will not do is turn our NYPD officers into immigration agents.”deport-politicians

The Major Cities Chiefs Association, an organization made up of dozens of senior law enforcement executives from the nation’s largest cities, rejects the policy of enlisting local or state officers in immigration enforcement.

“We do not believe local police should be involved in civil immigration enforcement,” Darrel Stephens, executive director of the association, told The Daily Signal. “We do have a responsibility, however, to enforce criminal laws regardless of one’s immigration status. Our agencies work with ICE on a range of programs involving human trafficking, gang enforcement, and the like.”

In Texas, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, a newly elected Democrat, terminated a 287(g) partnership with ICE in which 10 trained local deputies screened the immigration status of jailed suspects.

Adrian Garcia, a Democrat who served as Harris County sheriff from 2009 to 2015, told The Daily Signal that he tried to end an agreement with ICE that he inherited from his predecessor. During his tenure, Garcia said, Harris County altered the program so that local officers screened the immigration status only of “violent, serious” offenders in the jail, rather than all inmates.

The 23-year veteran of the Houston Police Department commended Gonzalez for ending the program.

“It was a constant battle to stay true to what I thought the goal should be, which was to go after the worst of the worst,” Garcia told The Daily Signal, adding:

It was important for me that the community never lost confidence in the police department. There was an increasing amount of feedback that people were not engaging with law enforcement as they could or should have.liberal-propaganda-hogwash

Evaluating Impact

Back in Prince William County, debate over the impact of its immigration enforcement program continues, even though it is less visible and contentious today operating strictly in the jail. A 2013 study published by the American Society of Criminology found that while the policy did not affect most forms of crime in the county (including robberies, drug offenses, and drunk driving), aggravated assaults declined 27 percent after the announcement of the original policy in July 2007.

Last year, 22 homicides occurred in the county, the highest total since local authorities began tracking them in 1975. The overall crime rate is at a 24-year low, however. Prince William’s noncitizen Hispanic population (legal and illegal) declined 23 percent from 2007 to 2009.

A 2010 study by the University of Virginia found that most of the arrests of illegal immigrants in 2009—about 70 percent—were for drunken driving, public drunkenness, and driving without a license. The study also showed that illegal immigrants committed a relatively small percentage of the county’s serious crimes—6 percent in 2009.

Experts say it’s difficult to connect crime and population trends to the county’s immigration policy, since illegal immigrants were committing a small percentage of serious crimes, and the policy’s implementation coincided with the economic downturn. Thomas Guterbock, the director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Survey Research, said that overall, the policy had achieved its intended effect.

“As Prince William County showed, these programs can be effective in doing what they are intended to do—finding undocumented persons who have committed crimes or serious violations of immigration law,” Guterbock told The Daily Signal. “If done carefully, they could be made to work behind the scenes as a fairly quiet and unbiased way to find and deal with those people.”


Josh Siegel is the news editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Josh.

Iranian Officer and Government Advisor says Iran has Supporters in the USA ready to Attack

waving flag disclaimerwarning-unvetted-postAuthored By Onan Coca February 28, 2017

Hassan Abbassi

We have Iranian activist Banafhseh Zand to thank for once again revealing to us the danger that we face from the Muslim world. In a recent post to his Twitter feed, Zand exposes the threat that Iran (one of the nation’s on Trump’s travel “ban” order) poses to the United States.against-america

The threat is voiced by Hassan Abbassi, who happens to be an officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran and heads up a think-tank that provides counsel for the Iranian government’s leadership. He is an important supporter of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and he is a trusted advisor to the Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Khamenei.

I say all of this so that you understand that when Abbassi speaks of foreign policy issues, particularly ones that pertain to the USA, we should be paying attention. The man has a lot of influence in Iranian politics.

Recently, Banafhseh Zand happened to get a hold of a video that showed Abbassi explaining that Iran had many loyal supporters in the United States who were ready, willing, and waiting to attack.

“We have 2 million Iranians there (in the USA) be certain that I will raise a guerilla army from amongst them against you, you know this well.

Look how vulnerable you were on 9/11 when 4 Arabs from Saudi who don’t know how to fight managed to endanger your foundations. Yet with us, you face a nation even stronger. Don’t forget, we have 7,000 PhD holders in the U.S. If only 11 people created 9/11, do you realize what we can do?

We don’t need nuclear weapons, you have 6000 nuclear warheads those warheads are our target for our guerillas to destroy. Not even an Iranian guerilla movement but we have people from ALL Islamic countries…

We will guide anyone who has problems with the U.S. We have identified the U.S.’s Achilles heel…”

The threat is real, folks, and it’s time we demand our government and our media take the threat seriously. Liberals must be forced to stop playing politics with our lives and get proactive about our national defense.America Never Forget


Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at, and the managing partner at Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

Four Powerful Reasons I Know God Exists

waving flagAuthored by Ryan Day | Updated 28 Feb 2017 at 12:16 PM

URL of the original posting site:
I couldn’t have been more surprised by something I heard coming from the backseat of our Dodge Caravan last Friday night. As the sun crept behind the Pennsylvania mountains, my four-year-old son, Carter, cried out, “It’s getting dark, and I’m afraid of the dark, Daddy! The monsters are coming out!”

At that moment, I was relieved my son couldn’t see my face in the rear-view mirror, because it was all I could do to keep from laughing.

Monsters. My first thought was to wonder which kids television show had planted this idea in his mind. But then, like a good dad, I relieved my son’s fears by telling him there is no such thing as monsters. Instead, I explained the truth: God made everything — including the darkness — and even when it is dark God still watches over us.

Later that evening, when darkness reigned supreme and the monsters were a no-show, I couldn’t help but spot the irony in our conversation. When Carter mentioned monsters, I snickered at his childish understanding and spent the next few minutes explaining God’s existence. But how many millions of secular people today secretly hide a smile when they hear someone mention the existence of God? “A Supreme Being? Really? You can’t be serious!”

/* */




If it were possible, how many atheists would like to take me on a car ride, where they would explain that just like monsters in the darkness, God is just a figment of my imagination?

I am willing to admit one striking similarity between Carter’s magical monsters and my glorious God: Both are invisible to the human eye. But that is surely where the similarities end.

While there is no reasonable evidence to prove the existence of monsters, there are some remarkable proofs that demonstrate the existence of a mighty God who lives and loves. So how do I know with an unshakable certainty that God really exists?

1.) Because the universe is here.

If you walked into your kitchen and spotted a fresh pot of dark-roast coffee brewing on the countertop, what would you conclude about how it got there? Did that pot of coffee magically burst into existence? Of course not — someone must have prepared it.

Common sense tells us every effect has a cause. Something can’t come from nothing, so if something is here, then something else must have caused it. The universe is here — and it is amazing. Therefore, the best logical conclusion is that this incredible universe was caused by a truly incredible God. He is the first and greatest cause (Gen. 1:1). 

2.) Because the world overflows with design.

Millions of consumers love Apple because its products feature stunning designs. Pick up the latest iPhone, and you cannot deny the remarkable engineering behind it.

In the same way, the world overflows with undeniable evidence of design: the consistency of gravity, the cycle of seasons, the optics of the human eye, the pumping power of the human heart, the genetic information in DNA. All of these realities point to a magnificent Designer, namely God.

3.) Because all humans understand right and wrong.

As a father of six children, I have broken up many fights between toddlers yearning for the same toy. But what is truly fascinating is how even the youngest children have an instinctive understanding of right and wrong.

When a boy pushes his sister into the dirt and steals her doll, no one has to teach her that wrong has been committed. She senses it, and cries to Dad for justice. In the same way, every human being has an innate understanding of good and evil. Humans know that murder, rape, and robbery are wrong — regardless of culture or education. Since this “law of morality” exists in the conscience of every person (Rom. 2:14-15), there must be a good Lawgiver who implanted it there. That Lawgiver is God.


4.) Because millions have been transformed.

Years ago, Harry Ironside was preaching in San Francisco when a heckler shouted, “All you’re saying is a lie! And I challenge you to debate me tomorrow.”

Ironside replied, “I will be delighted to debate you, but I have one condition. I’ll be here tomorrow with 100 people, whose lives were once wretched — but now have been delivered by the grace of God. I’ll be here with my 100. But I challenge you to bring 100 who have been saved by the power of atheism.”

While there are many logical proofs for God’s existence, there is perhaps no greater evidence than the millions of broken people whose lives were completely transformed by God’s amazing grace. Where will power came up short, God’s power gave the victory (1 Cor. 15:57).

For as long as life lasts, children will look to their parents for answers to the hardest questions. Sometimes those questions come at the dinner table; other times they bubble up from the backseat of the car.

Are you ready for those curious conversations about school romances, lightning strikes, or monsters in the dark? In my experience, I know I haven’t always given the best answers to my children’s inquiries. But there is one thing I can affirm with absolute confidence: God exists. No matter where I look, His powerful presence is undeniable. And that truth gives me peace when the lights go out.amen

Ryan Day is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where he has served for 17 years. He is a regular contributor to LifeZette.

How Trump Maintains Anti-Regulatory Momentum

waving flag disclaimerAuthored by Luke Popovich | Updated 28 Feb 2017 at 7:36 AM

URL of the original posting site:

One of the themes emerging from the new Trump administration is a focus on overturning onerous regulations currently smothering American industries. It’s a laudable goal, since government rules bear so heavily on middle-class job creation.

On Feb. 24, the president signed an executive order tasking officials with peeling back excess regulation. The president still faces a fairly big problem, however, since behind each regulatory door he opens, there are two more doors.

Essentially, the Obama administration spent its second term cooking up a wide array of environmental measures that were both ideologically conceived and bureaucratically cumbersome. And nowhere was such red tape stretched more aggressively than in the quest to keep coal and minerals in the ground.

Already, President Trump has followed through on some of his campaign pledges. For example, he signed a congressional resolution overturning the Obama-era “stream rule.” This massive rule simply duplicated existing measures to monitor coal mining and land reclamation. Thus, canceling the rule will not meaningfully impact environmental standards already in place. But it will lift the hefty costs intended to punish mining firms simply for extracting a carbon-based source of energy.

That’s merely step one for the Trump administration, though. There’s more to do. 

/* */




First off, there’s the leasing moratorium imposed on coal reserves on federal lands. Even though federal coal accounts for 42 percent of total U.S. coal production — while being responsible for 40 percent of total coal-generated electricity in 2014 — the Interior Department decided last year to shut down new coal leases for three years.

This smacks of political payoffs to activists since taxpayers receive 39 cents from every dollar earned from federal lease sales while the net global “carbon contribution” from federal coal is negligible. The moratorium solved a problem no one had. The good news is that this moratorium can be lifted by the new Interior Department secretary as easily as it was imposed by his predecessor. Thus, after Ryan Zinke is confirmed for his post at the Interior Department, he could move quickly to end the moratorium.

Also in the administration’s purview is the Obama administration’s “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), the carbon reduction rule currently tied up in the D.C. Circuit Court. In essence, the CPP represents the zenith of regulatory ambition — a total transformation of the nation’s energy grid, engineered by an environmental agency hoping to impose the very cap-and-trade regime that Congress repeatedly rejected. The CPP is still breathing, but barely; it isn’t legally binding until the D.C. Circuit decides its dubious legality. But Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has reiterated his intention to scrap the plan — an encouraging prospect for the millions of Americans living in states that depend heavily on electricity from reliable and affordable coal-based power

And finally, there’s the blundering excess of the financial assurance requirement that Obama’s EPA hoped to impose on hard-rock mining companies. It is already standard practice for mining firms in the United States to post financial assurances for the reclamation, closure, and post-closure costs of any mining site. But the EPA simply decided to duplicate these requirements, even though the process is already being managed successfully by state regulators as well as by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

Why would the EPA want to increase the financial burden on mining companies by requiring them to lay out additional capital for the same costs they’ve already covered? Because green activists have waged an ideological campaign opposed to mining, and the EPA simply acquiesced to their agenda. Ignored by these same environmentalists is their reliance on the very metals and minerals they would keep in the ground.

Trump Should End Obama Coal Lease MoratoriumNew energy production on federal lands will generate affordable electricity for the entire country Smartphones, for example, contain more than 40 metals and minerals extracted from state-of-the-art mining operations. And solar panels and wind turbines require copious amounts of bauxite, boron, cadmium, copper, cobalt, iron, molybdenum, etc. The new financial assurance requirement is another example of an environmental agenda lacking any real-world practicality.

Mining matters greatly to the future security of the United States, however. And it’s not just the reliable, affordable energy that coal provides. Or the critical minerals needed for 21st century technologies. There’s also the thousands upon thousands of good-paying, middle-class jobs on the line, and the economic impacts for industry and manufacturing.


This is why the Trump administration must continue to root out regulations that were conceived in an ideological vacuum — with little to justify their massive impact. Dismantling an anti-coal regulatory edifice, and ending the blanket hostility to mining, will do much to secure affordable energy and a stronger industrial base for America.

Luke Popovich is vice president for external communications at the National Mining Association (NMA).

Vulnerable 2018 Senate Democrats Duck Town Halls

waving flag disclaimerAuthored by Martin Walsh | Updated 28 Feb 2017 at 8:05 AM

URL of the original posting site:

As Republicans continue to fight back against trained activists disrupting their town halls, some of the nation’s most vulnerable Senate Democrats are refusing to hold meetings with their constituents ahead of the 2018 elections. While Congress is on recess, lawmakers across the country have been holding town halls to discuss issues ranging from repealing and replacing Obamacare, border security, and the president’s executive order limiting immigration from seven terror-ridden nations.

While disruptions to Republican town halls have received much of the media’s attention, notable Democrats are skipping out on the chance to speak to the voters about important issues. Democrats avoiding in-person town halls altogether have instead resorted to communication through the telephone, e-mail surveys, and social media. Some are only meeting with voters in controlled environments with limited opportunities to ask questions, according to ABC News.

“Seems to me that all these members of Congress are afraid to face their constituents,” said Hillary Shields, a volunteer organizer with the Kansas City Indivisible, said after Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) declined the group’s invitation to attend a town hall.

Democrats will be defending 25 seats in 2018, 10 of which are in states carried by President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. 

/* */

McCaskill declined an invitation from Indivisible, the liberal activist group leading many of the protests against Republican lawmakers at town halls, and instead sent one of her staffers to speak on her behalf, according to ABC News.

Trump won McCaskill’s state by 19 percentage points over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, making Missouri a high-priority target for Republicans to try to unseat McCaskill in 2018. McCaskill does not have any scheduled town halls, but she is slated to speak with her constituents this upcoming week on Facebook Live.

The political pressure has kept other endangered Democrats in hiding from their constituents. Neither Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) held in-person town halls during the recent recess. Trump won both of their states by more than 30 points in November. Heitkamp’s office indicated that she participated in a discussion about flood issues with voters in northeastern North Dakota and attended a subsequent ribbon-cutting event. Likewise, Manchin’s office reported an equally busy schedule, while his constituents argued he has been “hard to find” this past week, according to the Associated Press.

In Montana, where Trump beat Clinton by 20 percentage points, Sen. Jon Tester made a few small public appearances, but none in the form of a town hall where voters could ask him questions.

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) claimed he would be hosting a town hall in early March, but details of the event are not yet available on his official website. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) delivered remarks to students Thursday, while Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) spoke with his constituents through a tele-town hall.

Other Senate Democrats not up for re-election in 2018 are ducking town halls, too. Washington Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are not scheduled to speak in their states at all, The Seattle Times reported.

Last Wednesday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) faced a raucous crowd that repeatedly heckled the former infantryman as he attempted to answer audience questions. Cotton kept his cool and answered many of the questions that were asked of him, even as he was being booed.

The importance of speaking to your constituents is crucial, Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“It’s now on us to produce results. And one of the things that we need to do is engage with the public,” Christie said.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

waving flagTrash Talkin’

URL of the original posting site:

The Dakota Pipeline protesters seem more bent on advancing their leftist anti-capitalist  political agenda than doing their part not to pollute. Pro-Life News Report

waving flagMonday, February 27, 2017

For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit

I AM A PERSON with Poem

Top Stories
• Actresses Emma Stone and Dakota Johnson Promote Planned Parenthood at the Oscars
• Chelsea Handler Aborted Two Babies, For Her Birthday She Wants Planned Parenthood Donations to Abort More
• Barbara Bush, Daughter of Pro-Life President George W. Bush, Will Headline Planned Parenthood Event
• Franklin Graham: “Raising Funds for Planned Parenthood is Like Raising Money to Fund a Nazi Death Camp”

More Pro-Life News
• New Pro-Abortion Democrat Party Chair Tom Perez is Pro-Abortion, Has Ties to George Soros
• Peter Singer Says an Intellectually Disabled Person is Less Valuable Than Animals
• Huffington Post Gives 5 Reasons Women Should Brag About Their Abortions
• Killing Babies in Abortions is Now a Fashion Statement
• Iowa Committee Passes Bill to Ban Abortions and Call Unborn Children Human Beings
• Univision Still Totally in the Tank for Planned Parenthood
• Boston College Students Reject Resolution Saying Fighting Abortion is “Legitimate Advocacy”
• Indiana House Passes Bill to Tell Women How the Abortion Pill Can be Reversed to Save Their Baby
• Assisted Suicide Deaths Can be Horrifyingly Slow and Painful
• Texas Committee OKs Banning Wrongful Birth Lawsuits Saying Parents Wish Kids Were Never Born
• Abortion Clinic Under Investigation for Selling the Body Parts of Aborted Babies
• Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic That Failed Inspections Injures Another Woman in Botched Abortion
• Minnesota Euthanasia Advocates Introduce Legislation to Legalize Assisted Suicide

Actresses Emma Stone and Dakota Johnson Promote Planned Parenthood at the Oscars
Two actresses gave subtle nods to the abortion chain Planned Parenthood on Sunday during the Oscars.

Click to Read at

Chelsea Handler Aborted Two Babies, For Her Birthday She Wants Planned Parenthood Donations to Abort More
Talk show host Chelsea Handler has already aborted two of her unborn babies.

Click to Read at

Barbara Bush, Daughter of Pro-Life President George W. Bush, Will Headline Planned Parenthood Event
Former President George W. Bush and his daughter clearly don’t see eye to eye on abortion.

Click to Read at

Franklin Graham: “Raising Funds for Planned Parenthood is Like Raising Money to Fund a Nazi Death Camp”
Christian minister Franklin Graham is not happy that Barbara Bush, the daughter of pro-life former President George W Bush, is going to headline a fundraiser for the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

Click to Read at

New Pro-Abortion Democrat Party Chair Tom Perez is Pro-Abortion, Has Ties to George Soros
The new head of the national Democratic Party is just as much of a pro-abortion radical as his predecessor, pro-abortion congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Click to Read at


Peter Singer Says an Intellectually Disabled Person is Less Valuable Than Animals
In his apologetics for infanticide, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has used a baby with Down syndrome as an example of a killable infant based on utilitarian measurements.

Click to Read at

Huffington Post Gives 5 Reasons Women Should Brag About Their Abortions
For nearly five decades, abortion activists have tried and largely failed to convince society that abortion is a good thing for women.

Click to Read at

Killing Babies in Abortions is Now a Fashion Statement
It happened at the Golden Globes, New York Fashion Week and, now, the Oscars: America’s largest abortion provider is becoming a “fashion statement.”

Click to Read at

Abortion Clinic Under Investigation for Selling the Body Parts of Aborted Babies

Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic That Failed Inspections Injures Another Woman in Botched Abortion

Minnesota Euthanasia Advocates Introduce Legislation to Legalize Assisted Suicide

Daily Pro-Life News Report
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report
Receive a free daily email report from with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.

Comments or questions? Email us at
Copyright 2003-2017 All rights reserved.

I knew you force everyone unborn-lives-matter life-begins-at-conception deliver-me dead-alive absurdities Would You two victums Saved us all Pro Life how many body parts PP Body Parts Healthcare Choice Andrea Why isit legal Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves so ROE hate God brave enough

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: